Calls for party loyalty are fine, to a point

[jpgray]

What some mean by the phrase goes beyond simple loyalty. It is the mechanism by which a party must worship before the venality of Ben Nelson and his kind, even as it demands that incisive criticism of their betrayals be ignored or ridiculed. The more such criticism is informed by ideals similar to one's own, the more it must be thoroughly disowned; party accomplishments must be touted as venerable evidence of successful governance, even if they better represent the trampling of a president's original goals and promises by the worst aspects of the party.

Party loyalty as expressed at the ballot box is in these times an absolute necessity, but the more fanatical adherents would ask that such loyalty extend to every public expression, lest a single voter be "demoralized." That this is itself an intensely demoralizing doctrine never seems to enter their minds. People give up Catholicism for being asked to yoke their reason to enigmatic puffs wafting over a papal conclave, but at least they are never asked to pretend the college of cardinals is an institution wholly representative of volcanic upsets in the status quo.

Allow me to consider these ultramontane impulses obnoxious and antithetical to rational thought while I vote D this year. Just tell yourself it would "remoralize" me.

It might also be admitted that the likelihood of Glenn Greenwald posts or woodchuck avatars profoundly influencing the election is overstated as soon as it is stated. Lethargic voters in a mid-term election? Incumbents running away from a president whose proposals they nibbled to worthlessness and larded with graft? A lack of enthusiasm for the incumbent party in the awful wake of a recession? These are not necessarily signs of the professional left's insidious reach, in my opinion.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[Fumesucker]

2. "Blue Dogs, fuck yeah!!"

That's the way some want us to think (or at least act) and I agree that it's demoralizing in the extreme.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

8. To me it's more like "fuck, well at least blue dogs are better then Teabaggers".

Which they are. There are also quite a few good liberal Dems that need help. Bemoaning how bad the party is in general takes away from the support they need to win.

[Fumesucker]

9. But every vote for a Blue Dog, no matter how tightly the nose is held while voting..

Will be interpreted by the Democratic politicians as "Blue Dogs, fuck yeah!!".

[kentuck]

16. We luv dem blue dogs!

That's exactly how it will be interpreted.

[treestar]

19. Not so. They are glad to have a Democrat from a conservative district

Rather than a Teabagger or other type of Republican.

[Fumesucker]

22. Exactly what I said.. "Blue Dogs, fuck yeah!!"

After this head fake to the left in the month or two before the election it will be back to business as usual, moving ever further to the right, the Blue Dogs really help with that, which is why the Democrats are so glad to get them.

[msongs]

3. when democrats govern like republicans, disconnect is to be expected lol nt

[SargeUNN]

4. Obama said it best the other day

I am proud to be a Democrat but prouder to be an American.

[TexasObserver]

5. It's not better to have a Republican than a Democrat win a seat in congress.

That's the very simple concept. If we don't control both houses of congress, we completely lose control of the legislative process, and we make the president vulnerable to the kind of political witch hunts Clinton suffered through.

The choice is very easy. It's never going to be better to vote for Ben Nelson's GOP opponent than to vote for him. If the only thing he's good for is helping us maintain the senate leadership, that's enough to justify supporting him over the GOP opponent.

Politics is about the possible, not the ideal.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

26. what has the democratic party done with the control they have had thus far?

[OregonBlue]

6. If the Repukes win a majority, they control what legislation comes before each house. That is the

flaw in your thinking. Do you really want them deciding what legislation is even considered?

[jpgray]

7. I'm going to quote for you an operant part of the OP

Party loyalty as expressed at the ballot box is in these times an absolute necessity

We have some bums in our caucus that help to produce bum policy. We should not be ashamed to say this. We aren't at liberty, however, to throw the bums out.

[kentuck]

12. We need to throw them out...

even if it is only one at a time. That would not threaten the majority but it would be beneficial to the Party.

[OregonBlue]

21. Throwing out the bum blue dogs is one thing. Obama Derangement Syndrome is another.

[datasuspect]

27. they already control it.

even with a democratic majority.

[kentuck]

28. But many think the Democrats control it...

because they have the Blue Dogs in their caucus. They don't see that the Republicans have the Blue Dogs in the Democratic caucus so they are always in control...

[G_j]

11. well said

K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The Democratic Party "lost" the dixiecrats in the 60s and survived. Time to "lose" the Blue Dogs.

[kentuck]

14. Bingo!

Well said!

[EFerrari]

15. If people don't want to engage in political debate ahead of the election

GD is probably the wrong forum for them.

[jgraz]

17. Excellent post. Bonus points for using "ultramontane" :)

I would say that raw party loyalty is only acceptable when it's a means to an end. If you're trying to swell the ranks of Democrats to overcome Repuke obstructionism, then party loyalty makes sense. But when a Democrat actually becomes the obstruction, then we need to remove them from office.

Unless it means losing control of the Senate, we'd be no worse off with a Puke in Nelson's seat than we are now. In fact, we'd be a bit better off, since there would be no question about opposing whatever a Republican senator did.

[treestar]

18. All I can say if, over and over, then NO complaining that the

Republicans can get things done when they are in. The leaders know they have solid, staunch support, even if they don't get it all.

[EFerrari]

20. And you have a license to limit speech, how?

[thelordofhell]

23. I hate the bitterness

If you don't like your blue-dog Democratic representative, find a non blue-dog Dem candidate and get that person to win the primary. All this whining after the primary is idiotic.....stand behind who your party chose to run in the general election. Bitterness is for republicans.

:rant:

[kentuck]

24. Well, that settles it.

It's bitterness. Stand behind your Party.

[Dr.Phool]

25. Try getting that person funded.

Have you ever run a campaign? An incumbent comes pre-loaded with campaign cash. And the DCCC is an incumbent protection racket. And throughout the Harold Ford-Rahm Emmanuel era, they actively undermined viable, progressive candidates, and stuck their noses and money into primaries.

[thelordofhell]

29. Have you ever run a campaign? He says bitterly.

No. But I have participated in many and will participate in many more. There are people way more qualified than me to run a campaign. Look, sometimes the candidate that I helped did not win their primary, but I still supported the Democratic nominee in the general, that's the point I'm making. I don't bitch and moan about the candidate after the primary, that just gives fuel to the fire for the republican candidate.

The rest of your statement is ridiculous. Of course incumbents have an advantage because they are the incumbent, the "racket" also protects progressive incumbents.